There's a warning of 'cyclists about' but certainly nothing of an uncontrolled crossing on a slip road. I saw the sign and the separate cycle path, but not the crossing point. The cycle path should have been continued to the RAB and a lights controlled crossing installed. No brainer really. I'm guessing there's some issue over land ownership on the left that planning were trying to avoid.

Mike Roberts - Now riding a Triumph Explorer XRT. My username comes from my 50K miles on a Kawasaki 1400GTR, after may years on Hondas of various shapes and styles. - https://tinyurl.com/mikerobertsonyoutube

GTR1400MAN wrote:There's a warning of 'cyclists about' but certainly nothing of an uncontrolled crossing on a slip road.

According to gov.uk that sign means 'Cycle route ahead'. The inference being that a parallel cycle route joins or crosses, perhaps?

GTR1400MAN wrote: The cycle path should have been continued to the RAB and a lights controlled crossing installed. No brainer really. I'm guessing there's some issue over land ownership on the left that planning were trying to avoid.

I'm guessing it's a no win, if the path continued up to the rb and back down, the cyclists would ask "Why do we have to ride up and down extra man-made hills?"

Horse, it goes up to the roundabout anyway! Dumps into a 'paint protected' lane which immediately ends (because you have to cross the slip road again).

It's a lethal (not 'potentially' any more) design that should never have got approval (and there are plenty like it around). TBH I didn't post it here in order to have a 'cyclist vs motorist' argument, simply to make people aware that non-motorised road users do get dumped out into live motor lanes in this fashion. They shouldn't ... but they do. Take care folks.

There was a fatal collision a few years ago at such a slip road on the A23 in Sussex.A young French girl was cycling and was hit by a car and she was killed.Her parents started a campaign because as there was a crossing she should have had priority, as indeed she would have done in her own country.They placed a 'ghost' bike at the spot and I believe this was among the first to appear.I see no point in having a crossing if those using it do not have priority; likewise I see no point in narrowing roads to allow pedestrians to still wait for the good grace of someone to pause for them. If we narrow the road then that should be a place at which those crossing have priority; can't see a point to it otherwise.Here is a good example of what I mean; why narrow the road and not grant those crossing priority?

I too had to look carefully to see that crossing even having seen the warning signs - bonkers half-hearted thinking and I bet no one thought to ask any cyclists whether a crossing there was needed or wanted... especially as at the top the provision just disappears

That narrowing shown, is also horrible as a cyclist - I would be aiming to be in the primary position at that point if traffic is free flowing.... if it's stationary I'd be in the middle oertaking the stationary traffic, keeping an eye out for pedestriations crossing at any point, then ow got an island and bollards to deal with

Still, at least on approach to it they are 'protected' by all that nice paint!

Mike Roberts - Now riding a Triumph Explorer XRT. My username comes from my 50K miles on a Kawasaki 1400GTR, after may years on Hondas of various shapes and styles. - https://tinyurl.com/mikerobertsonyoutube